I would like to thank you for holding these hearings. I have waited
a long time to have this many people in one room interested in capital
budgeting.

As you know, I have long been a supporter of capital budgeting. For
many years, I have supported establishing a federal capital budget. I have
introduced stand alone legislation and constitutional amendments to balance
the federal budget using a capital budget. In 1994 I began introducing
legislation to establish a Commission to study capital budgeting. I would
like to think that your presence here is in part, response to the work
that I have done over the years.

Since I began my capital budgeting crusade years ago many things have
changed. Many of my allies, from both sides of the aisle, have left the
House for the Senate, state office or retirement, the White House has changed
administrations and the budget landscape looks bright. Now, we are not
just talking about balancing the budget, we are talking about surpluses.
Now is the time that we should be focusing on establishing a capital budget
which highlights investment over consumption spending.

The Congress has passed legislation reaffirming the importance of investment
in physical infrastructure. The effort to take the Transportation Trust
Funds off-budget highlighted

many of the issues that the Chairman and I have addressed for years.
This is not just an issue of using taxpayer dollars for their intended
use, but our responsibility to future generations -- not to leave a legacy
of crumbling roads and decaying bridges.

WE NEED CHANGES IN THE CURRENT BUDGET PROCESS

Next week we will receive the President's FY 1999 budget and begin
work on crafting the nation's spending priorities for the next spending
cycle. We will spend months getting our fiscal house in order and the major
issues facing Congress boil down to prioritizing spending for the next
decade and beyond. While there are 435 different answers to that question,
almost everyone agrees that we need to invest in programs and projects
that are lasting and will benefit future generations. That is why I am
here today, to discuss the concept of Capital Budgeting.

At home in West Virginia, I am often asked, "Why doesn't the Federal
Government balance its budget like my family?" As a veteran of six years
of service on the House Budget Committee, I have come to believe that many
of the budget problems facing this Congress, particularly the shift in
recent years from public investment toward consumption spending, have as
much to do with the budget process as with decisions made -- or not made
-- by the Congress.

Perhaps the greatest, and to me the most mystifying, problem with the
current system is the fact that the federal government's unified budget
makes no distinction between money spent on investments and money spent
for consumption. Highways, federal salaries, health benefits and foreign
aid, which are all examples of federal programs that are paid for through
taxes and borrowing, are all accounted for in basically the same way. But
all borrowing is not created equal. Borrowing for physical infrastructure
can be justified if it pays for itself in the long-run by increasing the
nation's wealth and capacity for future economic expansion. Borrowing to
meet the day-to-day expenses of government cannot.

That is why I have consistently introduced legislation that would divide
the federal unified budget into an operating budget and a capital budget.
Under my legislation, the
operating budget would include all programs that meet the immediate obligations
of running the government. The capital budget would include long-term,
tangible investments in infrastructure. Under this legislation, the operating
budget would be balanced, but the federal government could borrow money
for certain investments in infrastructure that increase the national wealth
and contribute to economic growth. Money borrowed for those infrastructure
investments would be paid back over the life of the road, bridge, sewer
system or other infrastructure investment.

IS A CAPITAL BUDGET FEASIBLE?

The concept of a federal capital budget is not new. The budget was
expanded in the 1950s to include information on investment spending. Reform
in the 1980s required even more investment information in the unified budget.
In fact since the Federal Capital Investment Program Information Act of
1984 Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, have submitted budgets that include
projections of Federal physical capital spending and information regarding
recent assessments of public civilian physical capital needs.

The supplemental information currently provided is useful and it represents
a good beginning. However, I do not believe it goes far enough because
supplemental information plays no role in the formal budget process. It
is not used in the formulation of the budget -- it is merely assembled
after executive budget decisions have been made. In addition, the information
plays no part in the congressional budget process. As a result, theinformation
has had little effect on the level of capital investment undertaken by
the Federal government.

Many other industrialized countries employ a capital budget, and businesses
and most state and local governments have investment budgets that separate
long-term capital investments from year-to-year operating costs. Individuals
and groups as diverse as former OMB Director Richard Darman, the General
Accounting Office and the Progressive Policy Institute have endorsed distinguishing
between investment and consumption spending in the budget. As a recent
GAO report on the harmful effects of the deficit points out, "a new [budget]
decision-making framework is needed, one in which the choice between consumption
and investment spending is highlighted throughout the decision process,
rather than being displayed for information purposes after the fact."

Businesses know the difference between borrowing to consume and borrowing
to invest. Borrowing is a smart move when the money is used to finance
productive investments that help a business modernize its equipment, expand
and become more profitable. But borrowing money to pay salaries or executive
bonuses or to send employees to expensive conferences rather than to modernize
would be foolish.

BUDGETING FOR THE FUTURE

I believe the federal government should make this same distinction
in its budget. By borrowing for current expenses the government is asking
future generations of taxpayers to pay for the cost of running the government
today. But borrowing to invest is different. If the government passes part
of the cost of building a road to future taxpayers, it also gives them
something in return -- a new highway that will encourage economic development,
facilitate commerce and increase economic growth for years to come.

Instituting a capital budget would force policy makers to decide whether
or not each investment is worth borrowing money to finance. In addition,
the public would benefit from knowing that the government's current costs
are being paid for and that any borrowing is for investments in the future
rather than paying for the present and saddling future generations with
bad debt.

All of us agree that the U.S. must make investments that are critical
to future economic growth but that the budget deficit must also be reduced.
Rather than going from crisis to crisis, the federal government should
have an institutionalized system of long-term investment planning. Adopting
a federal capital budget would provide such a mechanism.

Members of the Commission, this is a time of fundamental change in the
way government serves the people. In order to be more responsive to taxpayers'
needs and more responsible with taxpayers' money, I believe the federal
government should reform its budgeting to distinguish between consumption
and investment. I am hopeful that the Commission will recommend establishing
a capital budget that addresses long-term planning and investment. It is
important to remember that the current budget process is biased -- for
consumption and at the expense of capital investment. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this matter with you today.

-- Requires that the budget submitted by the President be a unified
budget comprised of an operating budget and a capital budget.

-- Limits the capital budget to major activities, projects and programs
that support the acquisition, construction,alteration, and rehabilitation
of physical infrastructure that produces services or benefits for more
than five years and has an initial cost of at least $500,000.

-- Transportation: Requires the Secretary of Transportation to report
on capital investments in roadways and bridges, airports and airway facilities
and mass transportation systems.

-- Water pollution: Requires the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to report on capital investments associated with waste
water treatment, water distribution delivery systems and related facilities.

-- Water resources: Requires the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works to report on capital investments associated with water resource
projects.

-- Public buildings: Requires the Administrator of the General Services
Administration to report on capital investments associated with public
buildings.